What do you think?
Rate this book
Political Writings
The original edition of Kant: Political Writings was first published in 1970, and has long been established as the principal English-language edition of this important body of writing. In this new, expanded edition two important texts illustrating Kant's view of history are included for the first time, his reviews of Herder's Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind and Conjectures on the Beginning of Human History, as well as the essay What is Orientation in Thinking?. In addition to a general introduction assessing Kant's political thought in terms of his fundamental principles of politics, this edition also contains such useful student aids as notes on the texts, a comprehensive bibliogaphy and a new postscript, looking at some of the principal issues in Kantian scholarship that have arisen since the first edition.
323 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1797
37 people are currently reading
2322 people want to read
About the author
Immanuel Kant
3,045 books4,375 followersImmanuel Kant was an 18th-century philosopher from Königsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He's regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe & of the late Enlightenment. His most important work is The Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics & epistemology, & highlights his own contribution to these areas. Other main works of his maturity are The Critique of Practical Reason, which is about ethics, & The Critique of Judgment, about esthetics & teleology.
Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed thru epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources & limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality–which he concluded that it does–then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it's possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, & so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. So the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind. Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists & the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired thru experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists & empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding Kant's system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.
Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed thru epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources & limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality–which he concluded that it does–then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it's possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, & so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. So the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind. Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists & the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired thru experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists & empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding Kant's system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
March 29, 2020
The introduction of my edition makes two striking points:
1. You should just learn German if you want to understand Kant.
2. Kant is a dry writer with occasionally brilliant sentences.
So, that was good to know. And actually, not a bad mentality for going in. I went in intimidated by Kant and I still feel intimidated by him, but also impressed. This is really fascinating stuff. I'm not sure I agree with any of it. But I find his logic fascinating.
Though an Enlightenment philosopher, he was more a contemporary of the American Revolution than an influence on it, and I think that is one reason I didn't necessarily resonate with his thought the way I do with Locke. But there are some really fascinating comparisons to be made with his work and Hobbes's. Looking forward to digging deeper in this stuff.
1. You should just learn German if you want to understand Kant.
2. Kant is a dry writer with occasionally brilliant sentences.
So, that was good to know. And actually, not a bad mentality for going in. I went in intimidated by Kant and I still feel intimidated by him, but also impressed. This is really fascinating stuff. I'm not sure I agree with any of it. But I find his logic fascinating.
Though an Enlightenment philosopher, he was more a contemporary of the American Revolution than an influence on it, and I think that is one reason I didn't necessarily resonate with his thought the way I do with Locke. But there are some really fascinating comparisons to be made with his work and Hobbes's. Looking forward to digging deeper in this stuff.
March 14, 2024
does it all make sense? maybe not
February 24, 2025
A truly incredible articulation of the basic foundation of contemporary Eurocrat liberalism. I would be frightened by anyone who didn't feel disgusted with the actual content of Kant's inhuman teaching, but he gets high marks for bringing into sight the philosophic underpinnings of our own world order. In brief, the Greeks and Romans saw rightly that the two great ends of politics are Freedom or Empire, and that both goods are mutually exclusive and prone to bringing about their own downfall. The Germans from Kant onward attempted to synthesize these two great ends, in the false hope of a world-state marked by mutual recognition and the total subjection of all to a so-called orderly freedom under the irresistible force of laws which know no boundaries.
A lot is wrong with this picture. The very notion that recognition can ever be universal is a delusion stemming from the failure to see that my recognition requires that others not be recognized; my worth requires others to whom I can compare myself positively or negatively. Not all persons are of equal value, and some persons are of no value at all. Freedom requires a concomitant austerity and provincial narrowness; Empire's cosmopolitan fruits and luxuries necessarily bring with them either bureaucracy or despotism. The Greek polis may represent the golden mean between the two (though we ought to wonder a bit at how the Greek experiment resulted in Socrates's Athens), but most certainly the ancients did not believe in a synthesis, merely a middle point. There is a fundamental choice to be made, as both are legitimate human goods, but it is little wonder that all attempts to synthesize the two have resulted in rule of the worst kind. You can see here the roots of all that was to come: Nazism, Communism, but most importantly for us, the rule of the faceless bureaucracy, the NGO, the Davos man, and the constant blather of "human rights" used to rob peoples of their sovereignty and self-determination.
A lot is wrong with this picture. The very notion that recognition can ever be universal is a delusion stemming from the failure to see that my recognition requires that others not be recognized; my worth requires others to whom I can compare myself positively or negatively. Not all persons are of equal value, and some persons are of no value at all. Freedom requires a concomitant austerity and provincial narrowness; Empire's cosmopolitan fruits and luxuries necessarily bring with them either bureaucracy or despotism. The Greek polis may represent the golden mean between the two (though we ought to wonder a bit at how the Greek experiment resulted in Socrates's Athens), but most certainly the ancients did not believe in a synthesis, merely a middle point. There is a fundamental choice to be made, as both are legitimate human goods, but it is little wonder that all attempts to synthesize the two have resulted in rule of the worst kind. You can see here the roots of all that was to come: Nazism, Communism, but most importantly for us, the rule of the faceless bureaucracy, the NGO, the Davos man, and the constant blather of "human rights" used to rob peoples of their sovereignty and self-determination.
November 7, 2015
Not all of the selections in this volume are the complete texts. The edited texts are "On the Common Saying", "Metaphysics of Morals" & "Contest of Faculties." A later edition of this book includes three more short items and a postscript concerning scholarly issues since its first publication in 1970.
Read
April 18, 2020Really not a political theorist. Please stop claiming Kant as a liberal.
September 9, 2025
The Enlightenment’s most prominent German is known for his comprehensive and systematic works in epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics; however, he never wrote a dedicated work on his political philosophy. Immanuel Kant’s Political Writings edited by Hans Reiss is a collection of either complete or selected portions of works over the course of the philosopher’s career that attempts to give the reader a in-depth understanding of Kant’s political philosophy.
Over the course of 272 pages of text, Reiss’ aim was to outline the central tenets of Kant’s political thinking and aim through his constructed framework of moral philosophy and the philosophy of history. As it says on the back cover of the book, “Kant’s aim was to establish the philosophical principles on which a just and lasting peace could be based, and to provide a philosophical vindication of representative, constitutional government that would guarantee respect for the political rights of all individuals.” The one problem is that frankly, I only learned that in Reiss’ introduction and postscript—along with the back cover itself—not from any of the selections from Kant’s work presented in the collection. Honestly I think I would have preferred a volume of Reiss writing an explanation of Kant’s political ideas for 272 pages than what I read as a whole especially because in the postscript Reiss wrote that Kant disagreed with rebellion of established government and thus thought the French Revolution was wrong but Reiss explained that Kant viewed the American Revolution favorably along the U.S. Constitution but didn’t explain why the latter revolution was different from the former in Kant’s mind. Reiss put in selections from “The Metaphysics of Morals” and an appendix from “The Critique of Pure Reason”, the former Reiss had to explain the entire work up until the selection so the reader would know what Kant’s frame of mind was and the later one long paragraph about the right form of a constitution. From what I can gather, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” might have been the only complete important work in the collection and while it was interesting, to say I was impressed with Kant’s explanation of his political philosophy—or what could be drawn out—would be a lie though not because it was badly written, it just fine. Overall, I was not really impressed by the book because while it is a collection, it feels more Kant writing about political theory at certain points in a bigger work than articulating a political philosophy.
Immanuel Kant’s Political Writings is a volume from passages from a life’s work which frankly pales in comparison to editor Hans Reiss’ explanations of Kant’s thinking than his actual words presented to reader.
Over the course of 272 pages of text, Reiss’ aim was to outline the central tenets of Kant’s political thinking and aim through his constructed framework of moral philosophy and the philosophy of history. As it says on the back cover of the book, “Kant’s aim was to establish the philosophical principles on which a just and lasting peace could be based, and to provide a philosophical vindication of representative, constitutional government that would guarantee respect for the political rights of all individuals.” The one problem is that frankly, I only learned that in Reiss’ introduction and postscript—along with the back cover itself—not from any of the selections from Kant’s work presented in the collection. Honestly I think I would have preferred a volume of Reiss writing an explanation of Kant’s political ideas for 272 pages than what I read as a whole especially because in the postscript Reiss wrote that Kant disagreed with rebellion of established government and thus thought the French Revolution was wrong but Reiss explained that Kant viewed the American Revolution favorably along the U.S. Constitution but didn’t explain why the latter revolution was different from the former in Kant’s mind. Reiss put in selections from “The Metaphysics of Morals” and an appendix from “The Critique of Pure Reason”, the former Reiss had to explain the entire work up until the selection so the reader would know what Kant’s frame of mind was and the later one long paragraph about the right form of a constitution. From what I can gather, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” might have been the only complete important work in the collection and while it was interesting, to say I was impressed with Kant’s explanation of his political philosophy—or what could be drawn out—would be a lie though not because it was badly written, it just fine. Overall, I was not really impressed by the book because while it is a collection, it feels more Kant writing about political theory at certain points in a bigger work than articulating a political philosophy.
Immanuel Kant’s Political Writings is a volume from passages from a life’s work which frankly pales in comparison to editor Hans Reiss’ explanations of Kant’s thinking than his actual words presented to reader.
January 27, 2025
I mainly read this book for the first two essays: "Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose" and "An Answer to the Question: 'What is Englightment'". These are two of Kant's less known works, which are nevertheless in equal intellectual standing.
In the "Universal History", Kant directly opens up with a staggering thought: that even if individual free will exists, collective will has a regular course; thus, a universal history. The whole essay then proceeds as a masterpiece.
The second essay is perhaps even more interesting, especially because Kant seems to be writing "in disguise". He wants his ideas to go unnoticed by those in power, but he still wants the public to be able to discern it. Kant is bold in this one: "It is so convenient to be immature!"
As I said, I have skimmed through the other essays, but I'm giving it 5 stars just for these 2 essays.
In the "Universal History", Kant directly opens up with a staggering thought: that even if individual free will exists, collective will has a regular course; thus, a universal history. The whole essay then proceeds as a masterpiece.
The second essay is perhaps even more interesting, especially because Kant seems to be writing "in disguise". He wants his ideas to go unnoticed by those in power, but he still wants the public to be able to discern it. Kant is bold in this one: "It is so convenient to be immature!"
As I said, I have skimmed through the other essays, but I'm giving it 5 stars just for these 2 essays.
April 13, 2022
I had not previously read Kant's political works and there is good material here that I'm glad to be better acquainted with. I particularly recommend his essay on Perpetual Peace as a worthy read during this war in Ukraine.
Read
June 1, 2020Great selection of texts, and handy introduction/postscript too. Particularly fascinating to see Kant's complex attitude towards the French Revolution in 'Contest of the Faculties'.
November 27, 2020
Not exactly what led to his self-proclaimed Copernicus level impact on thought, but Kant’s contributions to political theory were brilliant and by far my favorite part of his philosophical work
Read
October 28, 2021Confusing to read at first but I learned sooo much from reading this. Kant’s ideas translate everywhere in IR.
June 11, 2022
Švietimas yra žmogaus išsivadavimas iš nesavarankiškumo, dėl kurio žmogus pats kaltas. Nesavarankiškumas yra nesugebėjimas naudotis savo protų kitų nevadovaujamam.
March 14, 2024
Immersive and thought-provoking, delving into concepts of democracy and individual rights. Kant's ideas resonate deeply with modern politics.
Read
August 12, 2025I’ve worn solitude like a second skin—rough, abrasive, yet the only shield left against the world’s relentless roar.
June 1, 2021
I always find Kant a bit disingenuous, intentionally avoiding digging to the level where his conceptions of the world are actually challenged. His a priori knowledge acts as a warm blanket over any ideas he wants to protect without having a great deal of substance behind them. In the end, Kant tries to balance his ethics between a rejection of an all powerful deity and the preservation of morals established by a higher power. It was inevitable that we would, in time, reach a point in society where this conflict at the root of Kantian thought would form the battleground between complete nihilism. Unfortunately, we live in those times, where absolutes in morality have been rejected.
I wish Kant could have dug deeper, perhaps discovering the one rock on which permanent morality can be built. Alas, he neglected to do so. As a result, many of his ideas on political philosophy read as hopeful musings rather than true assertions. Of course, Kant himself recognized this to a certain extent. Kant indulged in prophesy in order to make human history turn toward it, in a self aware attempt at authorship of the future. In his own words, he describes prophesy as having power merely due to the propensity of humanity to ensure prophets speak truth. We prophesy the future, then make that prophecy happen through our intentional actions toward that direction.
In the end, Kant set a goal for humanity where he saw one lacking, and it is certainly a goal worth persuing: perpetual peace. At the same time, he established barriers in accomplishing this goal: the ends never justify the means. This imperative speaks against the facism that arose in the last century, as well as giving directives to society in general. In other words, there is wisdom contained in his philosophy, although fueled more on hope than on pure reason.
I wish Kant could have dug deeper, perhaps discovering the one rock on which permanent morality can be built. Alas, he neglected to do so. As a result, many of his ideas on political philosophy read as hopeful musings rather than true assertions. Of course, Kant himself recognized this to a certain extent. Kant indulged in prophesy in order to make human history turn toward it, in a self aware attempt at authorship of the future. In his own words, he describes prophesy as having power merely due to the propensity of humanity to ensure prophets speak truth. We prophesy the future, then make that prophecy happen through our intentional actions toward that direction.
In the end, Kant set a goal for humanity where he saw one lacking, and it is certainly a goal worth persuing: perpetual peace. At the same time, he established barriers in accomplishing this goal: the ends never justify the means. This imperative speaks against the facism that arose in the last century, as well as giving directives to society in general. In other words, there is wisdom contained in his philosophy, although fueled more on hope than on pure reason.
June 8, 2012
This is a very useful collection of Kant's political writings because they are the philosophical underpinnings of the trend toward transnational governance since 1815, beginning with the Congress of Vienna that established the international system after the Napoleonic wars in Europe, to the League of Nations and the United Nations.
Unfortunately the philosophy as philosophy is really bad. The entire teleological argument is founded unfortunately on the naturalistic fallacy.
Unfortunately the philosophy as philosophy is really bad. The entire teleological argument is founded unfortunately on the naturalistic fallacy.
June 28, 2013
I only read a handful of these pieces, the ones that focused on history. I was surprised at my ability to understand what Kant was saying, despite never having read his other philosophy. Of course, his views on history are completely bogus and only serve the purpose of strengthening the theoretical existence of the state. Now to read Hegel, to see how these ideas are elaborated.
to-keep-reference
October 18, 2016Kant aporta la clásica caracterización modernista del Iluminismo: Sapere aude (atreverse a conocer), emergiendo del actual estado de “inmadurez”, y festejando el uso público de la razón en el centro del reino social.
Imperio Pág.139
Imperio Pág.139
January 30, 2009
Now this was actually a Kant book that I really enjoyed. This is also the book that put his categorical imperative in a practical, social light... easier to understand and written with more clarity than some of his other works
November 3, 2010
Re-reading...
July 31, 2007
Read this book for a ethics class. Loved Kant for the endless "Kant" jokes he provided i.e. "Professor I am sorry but I Kant give you a sypnosis of the assigned reading"
Read
September 23, 2010Kant: Political Writings (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought) by Immanuel Kant (1991)
shelved
September 14, 2017this text focuses on "Kant's political thought in terms of his fundamental principles of politics"
December 1, 2011
Good translation, a pity that the footnotes are a bit obstruse
September 4, 2013
I personally find that Kant's political writings pale in comparison to his work in metaphysics, identity, and/or epistemology. I only read it - and kept reading it - because I had to for school.
July 22, 2016
Possibly the best primer to Kant's political thought. The translations are very accessible and the introduction is invaluable!
Credits: 4th year, undergrad in philosophy and psychology
Credits: 4th year, undergrad in philosophy and psychology
April 20, 2014
Game changerrr
June 12, 2016
Good Anthology of Kant's most overtly political writings.
January 16, 2017
It's a love the sinner, hate the sin thing. Love the philosophy, but oh, dear Cthulhu, the prose!
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews